Can Politicians be Followers of Jesus?

[GaryK]

I've been thinking a lot about this question in regards to another question some of us have been discussing - should Anabaptist followers of Jesus publicly call out politicians who claim to be followers of Jesus who don't actually follow Jesus' teachings?

If we should publicly call them out, what should they be called out for?
A. The fact that they are part of an anti-Jesus kingdom, which goes against our understanding of two kingdom theology?
B. The things they support that are in opposition to Jesus' teachings?

Ernie mentioned Byron Donalds in another thread as an example of what should be called out. So the question I have is this, if the struck through part was not included, would he still need to be publicly called out?

Byron Donalds
@ByronDonalds
Congressman, husband, father and follower of Christ proudly serving #SWFL fighting for freedom, liberty, 2A & school choice. Official Account:
@RepDonaldsPress

If the answer is no, is not publicly calling him out an endorsement of the idea that he can be a followers of Jesus as a politician?

If the answer is yes, I think I could get on board with calling out the idea that being a politician in a worldly government is not compatible with the nature of Jesus' Kingdom. When we call out "Christian" politicians from this premise it seems to me it can be done from a truly apolitical standing. I'm not sure that calling out their support for fighting for freedom, liberty and the 2A will ever be viewed as apolitical, simply because those are hot button political issues. IMO, those issues are the symptoms, not the root problem.

[barnhart]

I think we can always call people to a closer walk with Jesus but there is a self defeating element to doing it to politicians. Fighting fire with fire is ultimately admission that fire is morally neutral and calling out politicians is itself engaging in politics.

[Grace]

That question often crossed my mind. But I am glad I am not the judge on whether political leaders can be followers of Jesus or not. I am doing an in-depth study of the Book of Esther and how God put her into the political realm of her day. We as Anabaptists would have looked down on Esther. She was married to an ungodly, drunken, vile, self-centered king. She shared his bed before she was married. However, we know the whole story and we know that God put her there to save and preserve God's people. We don't know what or how God is moving in our political leaders today.

[Valerie]

I just don’t see how they can be appointed by God and rejected by Him.
Interpretations abound, not always representative of Gods heart & judgement.

[GaryK]

I think we can always call people to a closer walk with Jesus but there is a self defeating element to doing it to politicians. Fighting fire with fire is ultimately admission that fire is morally neutral and calling out politicians is itself engaging in politics.

This addresses another question I haven't been quite sure how to answer. Is there an element involved with politicians that is different than dealing with non-politician Christians who support the same things "Christian" politicians support?

I think I'm getting closer to an answer that brings some clarity for me. When a Christian gets involved in actually running the affairs of "that other kingdom" there is a direct conflict of interest involved that may not be as pronounced with those who are not politicians. How to call out this more pronounced conflict of interest in politicians requires addressing the root problem, which, at it's core, is the same in both. According to David Bercot, this root problem had its origins way back in Augustinian teachings.

[GaryK]

That question often crossed my mind. But I am glad I am not the judge on whether political leaders can be followers of Jesus or not. I am doing an in-depth study of the Book of Esther and how God put her into the political realm of her day. We as Anabaptists would have looked down on Esther. She was married to an ungodly, drunken, vile, self-centered king. She shared his bed before she was married. However, we know the whole story and we know that God put her there to save and preserve God's people. We don't know what or how God is moving in our political leaders today.

The primary distinction is that in these last days God has spoken to us, not through the fathers by the prophets, but by His Son. His Son has made it clear what our role as followers of Himself is and that's what I choose to live by. What God does with the present kingdoms of this world is His prerogative. We have clear NT teachings on how we are to relate to the kingdoms of this world and none of those teachings are at odds with what our role is or with what God is doing with those kingdoms.

[Valerie]

I think we can always call people to a closer walk with Jesus but there is a self defeating element to doing it to politicians. Fighting fire with fire is ultimately admission that fire is morally neutral and calling out politicians is itself engaging in politics.

This addresses another question I haven't been quite sure how to answer. Is there an element involved with politicians that is different than dealing with non-politician Christians who support the same things "Christian" politicians support?

I think I'm getting closer to an answer that brings some clarity for me. When a Christian gets involved in actually running the affairs of "that other kingdom" there is a direct conflict of interest involved that may not be as pronounced with those who are not politicians. How to call out this more pronounced conflict of interest in politicians requires addressing the root problem, which, at it's core, is the same in both. According to David Bercot, this root problem had its origins way back in Augustinian teachings.

That would be assuming the man of God Augustine was wrong, there are those who love God and see it the way Augustine did, and those who love God and disagree with Augustine. Thus different conclusions, thus different denominations. God will judge the hearts. We have to be careful in judging that which is Gods place. I have read a few of Bercots books & don’t hold him to the same high esteem as others nor am convinced he is always correct-

[JohnH]

I've been thinking a lot about this question in regards to another question some of us have been discussing - should Anabaptist followers of Jesus publicly call out politicians who claim to be followers of Jesus who don't actually follow Jesus' teachings?

If we should publicly call them out, what should they be called out for?
A. The fact that they are part of an anti-Jesus kingdom, which goes against our understanding of two kingdom theology?
B. The things they support that are in opposition to Jesus' teachings?

Ernie mentioned Byron Donalds in another thread as an example of what should be called out. So the question I have is this, if the struck through part was not included, would he still need to be publicly called out?

Byron Donalds
@ByronDonalds
Congressman, husband, father and follower of Christ proudly serving #SWFL fighting for freedom, liberty, 2A & school choice. Official Account:
@RepDonaldsPress

If the answer is no, is not publicly calling him out an endorsement of the idea that he can be a followers of Jesus as a politician?

If the answer is yes, I think I could get on board with calling out the idea that being a politician in a worldly government is not compatible with the nature of Jesus' Kingdom. When we call out "Christian" politicians from this premise it seems to me it can be done from a truly apolitical standing. I'm not sure that calling out their support for fighting for freedom, liberty and the 2A will ever be viewed as apolitical, simply because those are hot button political issues. IMO, those issues are the symptoms, not the root problem.

If we’re going to be consistent the “husband” part needs to go - as I understand it, he ditched his wife, started dating someone else, then tried to reconcile with his wife - until he found out the new girl was pregnant. Then they just got a quick divorce.

I am unimpressed with Christians who behave this way.

I can tolerate someone who advocates for others’ 2A rights but also says he is willing to lay his down. However, a high level politician ends up having to make decisions about the life or death of others. As a Christian I cannot justly make decisions about that. (I prefer not to wear my political position on the 2A as a “brand” as I don’t wish to be confused with someone who would indeed exercise their right to kill another human.)

[Soloist]

I just don’t see how they can be appointed by God and rejected by Him.
Interpretations abound, not always representative of Gods heart & judgement.

Babylon was appointed by God to judge Israel. Then rejected by God and brought down.

Was Biden ordained by God or not?
Was Hitler ordained by God or not?
Was Trump ordained by God or not?

[Valerie]

I just don’t see how they can be appointed by God and rejected by Him.
Interpretations abound, not always representative of Gods heart & judgement.

Babylon was appointed by God to judge Israel. Then rejected by God and brought down.

Was Biden ordained by God or not?
Was Hitler ordained by God or not?
Was Trump ordained by God or not?

According to Daniel it is He who sets up kings and removes them and leaders are ministers of God for good and not evil. He allows whomever he allows and someday it will be THE AntiChrist